Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My latest tunic reconstruction: results and conclusions!
#1
Reference: Sumner's "Roman Military clothing (1) 100 BC - AD 200"<br>
<br>
Note the illustrations D 2, D 3 and H 1 as well as that of the legionaries working from Hadrian's collumn on page 11 (Upper left).<br>
<br>
Tonight I completed a rudimentary reconstruction of a military tunic based on Papyrus BGU 1564 from Egypt as described in Sumner (p. 5), the dimensions of which are given as 3.5 cubits in length and 3 cubits 4 dactyls wide. Sumner converts these values to 1.55 m and 1.40 m respectively.<br>
<br>
Assuming a value of 39.4 inches per meter this works out to aproximate values of 61 inches and 55 inches.<br>
<br>
The weight is given as 3.5 Minae (converted by Sumner to 1.6 Kg)<br>
<br>
1 Kg =2.20462 lbs so the garment would have wieghed 3.57 pounds.<br>
<br>
I assumed that the above describes a standard tunic described in Bishop and Coulston (p. 99) as being made "from two rectangles joined with a central neck opening and two holes for the arms."<br>
<br>
I found 61 inches to be far too long when the tunic was worn with out a belt and decided to shorten the garment by removing about ten inches from the top (I wanted to retain the selvedge edge on the "hem") the resulting tunic when layed out flat measured about 55 inches in width and 48 linches in length and weighed 3.875 pounds. This indicates that the fabric weight was greater than that documented in the papyrus by a factor slightly less than 1.2 (estimate based on a total weight with the removed fabric of four pounds).<br>
<br>
The hem of the tunic was situated aproximately 8 inches below my knee when worn without a belt.<br>
<br>
My tunic also featured a head slit measureing 24 inches to accomodate exposure of the upper body in part as shown in the relief from Trajans collum on page 11 of Sumner.<br>
<br>
The garment was worn with a belt and the hem raised by bunching the fabric above the belt. The neck opening was moved to expose both shoulders for one test and a horse blanket pin (Note to self: I need to get a brooch) was used to gather up the excess fabric at the base of the neck in the fashion shown on Hadrian's collumn.<br>
<br>
Conclusions; The garment is no fashion statement. so much material was gathered above the belt that the belt itself could not be seen at all.It is big enough for two people with room to spare. re-examination of the depictions in the collumn reliefs substantiate that the tunics were indeed very loose (at least more so than most reconstruction I see in use by reenactors). and the folds of the garment<br>
<br>
Considering that the romans of the first Century were much smaller than the average American of the current era, The tunic described in BGU 1564 is a tent.<br>
the length and width are excessive on me. Although I am only 5 foot 8 inches tall and weight about 180 pounds I think I would be considered big by Roman standards. I can not imagine what this would look like on a legionary in classical times.<br>
<br>
My next experiment will be to alter it retaining the length of 48 inches but proportioning it so that the length to width ration matches that of the one described in the papyrus ( 1: 0.9) This will give a width of about 43 inches.<br>
<br>
I will begin with a standard sized neck opening in order to obtain an apraisal of it appearance and then "modify" it with a larger neck opening so I can work in the tunic.<br>
<br>
I will keep you all apraised.<br>
<br>
Sam Kimpton <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#2
Hi, Graham Sumner has asked me to post this:<br>
<br>
Dear Sam<br>
<br>
Naturally I am very interested with your work on a reconstructed tunic based on the dimensions given in the papyrus BGU 1564. However I am not surprised at your conclusions. Recently RAT member Derek Forest showed me his reconstruction of the same tunic based on BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
His reconstructed tunic along with two others based on examples from Nahal Hever and Mons Claudianus were tried and tested on the same model who was roughly the same height as yourself. ( Plans of these two tunics are in Roman Military Clothing (1) ).<br>
<br>
As far as I am aware the minimum height requirement was 5 feet 8 inches for Legionaries and 5 feet 10 inches for Cavalry and Legionaries for the First Cohort but this could be the usual poor translation of ancient sources. Perhaps Sander can help with that one?<br>
<br>
Clearly the BGU 1564 tunic was far too large and would need drastic alterations to fit not only the model but also beneath armour. In the experiment the Nahal Hever type tunic fitted the best.<br>
<br>
The example from Mons Claudianus on the other hand was way too short. Nevertheless it would have been suitable for an Auxiliary style tunic together with short trousers as worn by both cavalry and infantry on Trajan's Column. It was interesting that Mons Claudianus did have a garrison of cavalry but this in no way confirms that the tunic was either worn by a soldier or even by an adult male.<br>
<br>
Before altering your own tunic it should be remembered that the majority of surviving tunics of this period are wider than they are long unlike the dimensions in BGU 1564.<br>
<br>
Many surviving Roman tunics show evidence of alteration to shorten the length by means of tucks around the waist. Perhaps and I stress perhaps, these tucks were deemed unsightly and in the case of the military they were covered by waistbands.<br>
<br>
In our experiment it was possible to shorten the length of the BGU 1564 type tunic just by pulling it up and over the belt but that still left a great deal of material under the arms.<br>
<br>
As I am in the early stages of preparing an article on Tunics which will include some new material and evidence that came to light after my previous books were published I would be interested in seeing any photographs of your reconstructed tunic, perhaps before you alter it.<br>
<br>
I will look forward to hearing your views on your future reconstructions and would welcome the opinions of any other RAT members on this subject.<br>
<br>
Graham Sumner.<br>
<p></p><i></i>
It\'s all an accident, an accident of hands. Mine, others, all without mind, from one extreme to another, but neither works nor will ever.

Rolf Steiner
Reply
#3
<br>
<br>
<br>
Graham;<br>
<br>
Thank you for the kind response and encouragement to my post on the tunic reconstruction.<br>
<br>
I chose to reconstruct the BGU 1564 tunic as this was the only one which was specifically attributed for military use. However, If I may speculate, tunicae were likely designed primarily for function and not decoration. A modern era analogue would be the adoption and standardization of a common work garment, the sack coat, by the United States Army during the latter half of the 19th Century. I hold no point of contention with the idea that the military tunic of the late Roman Republic or early Empire had several points of congruence with those made for laborers of the period.<br>
<br>
Functionality would dictate that the knee and elbow joints would be unencumbered. I beleive this to be the reason why the hem was raised above the knees and the depitions of soldiers almost universally show the edges of the garment, the "cuffs" for lack of a better term, fall either at the anticubital area or above it. The tunic described in BGU 1564 does not conform to these notions however and as sized is wholey unsuitable for any other purpose than perhaps as a shroud in my opinion.<br>
<br>
I agree that it would require substantial alteration for any practical use. Although depictions of soldiers in tunicae illustrate the looseness of these garments shortening of the length of my reconstruction by raising the material above the belt line also resulted in an excessive amount of fabric under the arms. This would be a hinderance to manipulation of objects near this area of the body. Also, the width of the garment interferes with the flexing of the elbow joints.<br>
<br>
In short the wearer would have to constantly configure the tunic by moving fabric out of the way in order to get any work done. <br>
<br>
It should be noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the BGU 1564 tunic was ever worn either.<br>
<br>
As for the unusual length to width ratio as described on the papyrus please consider that the values could also have been reversed by mistake. Admittedly this is purely speculative however the posibility can not be ruled out. If the values for these attributes were reversed the garment would not be too unlike other finds in proportion.<br>
<br>
Dean Cunningham feels that the most accurate representation of a tunic in his opinion is the "Grave Stela" and that for practical use the hem of the tunic should fall somewhere between 6 to 8 inches below the knees when unaltered and unbelted and that the edges should also fall at or short of the anticubital area of the arm. I tend to agree with this but am in the process of researching the finds.<br>
<br>
Hence my reconstruction.<br>
<br>
I am very interested in hearing more about the methods of alteration employed in tunics by "tucking". I am also interested in the specifics of the finds in which these "tucks" are found. Such information would be very helpful in my experiments and I would be delighted to share my findings with you.<br>
<br>
If you do not wish to share this information on this forum I invite you to contact me directly through my e-mail address ( [email protected] ).<br>
<br>
Unfortunately the garment was already altered prior to my reading your post and I did not think to photograph it. Do not be discouraged however as this is not my last reconstruction and I would be willing to do another in future if you are truly interested.<br>
<br>
I would also be happy to provide you with photographs of the altered tunic.<br>
<br>
I intend to actually get my hands dirty by working in these garments. Chopping wood for instance is one activity I have in mind. I feel that the experiment would not be complete without a true apraisal of the functionality of the tunics under such circumstances.<br>
<br>
Again thank you for your interest. I am looking forward to hearing from you.<br>
<br>
Sam Kimpton<br>
(LEG II AUG)<br>
Portland, OR <p></p><i></i>
Reply
#4
I also have questions regarding the standards for guageing the length of a cubit or a dactyl. You must remember, actually it goes without saying, that these measurements hail from a pre-industrialized world. by defintion a cubit is the distance from the base of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. A dactyl is the width of a finger. using such a method of measurement is likely to yeild a much smaller garment.<br>
<br>
Sam Kimpton<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#5
Well can anyone tell me what to do with a tunic that absorbs the full 6' of me? Don't answer that.<br>
<br>
It makes a good summer sleeping bag. <p></p><i></i>
Quod imperatum fuerit facimus et ad omnem tesseram parati erimus
Reply
#6
A few thoughts on this:<br>
Are you sure that the width of 3 cubits 4 dactyls was the total flat width for this garment and not the fiished circumference. If the latter, then opened out flat it would have been only aprox 29 ins (assuming average cubit = 18", dactyl aprox 1", giving aprox 58" total). That would still be wide enough for most men.<br>
We know that the tunic when worn unbelted reached below the knee, as it was a form of punishment to make those disgraced remove their belts & wear their tunics like a lower-status slave/non-citizen. However, 3.5 cubits (or 63"-ish) would be far too long.<br>
<br>
Consider also the looms which this cloth was worked on. In the pre-industrial period, when looms were entirely manual, the shuttle would have to be passed across the weave by hand. For wide pieces of cloth you will need 2 people - 1 passes the shuttle halfway, the other then takes it from the other side. This limits the width of your cloth. Wide cloth is possible, but messy & in all probability the looms used would not have been this wide. This also suggests that the selve edges would be on the side, with the length of the garment worked down the warp of the fabric, not the other way around.<br>
<br>
Another consideration. Have you tried to wear this elephantine article underneath your lorica yet? Yes you can bunch up the length at the belt to some degree, but this combined with the bunched up width will make your lorica unwearable. One thing we know from the Corbridge finds are that each was made for the individual. They are surprisingly small, with a good overlap on the girdle plates, which probably made them quite a tight fit. If a lorica is well made and shaped to the the man, it hardly needs any substantial padding underneath. If you are then going to stuff him up with yards of bunched up bulky cloth it is going to push upthe girdle plates into the nerves under the arms. Pretty soon your unbeatable army will be wimpering on the floor to be cut out of it with a tin opener.<br>
<br>
Is it also possible that the width of the body was reduced by cutting out a rectangle on each side, forming sleeves? Examples of tunics have been found which were T shaped, so this is possible. The resulting offcuts would not have been thrown away - everything was re-cycled. for example, there were known to be guilds of patchers who reused small offcuts to produce clothing for poorer people.<br>
<br>
Or perhaps you have got the measurements right, but the tunic was not intended to be worn. You just hang out a few of these on the washing line and the enemy think you have an army of giants and leg it!<br>
<br>
<br>
Claudia<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply
#7
I went by the information which was available to me through Graham's book basing the reconstruction on this as an experiment as this is the only extant description of a military tunic.<br>
<br>
If you read my conclusions you will see that I am NOT in disagreement with any of you on this regarding the excessive size of the garment. This is why I ultimately altered it to make it wearable. the finished product does not resemble the initail experiment.<br>
<br>
I think the congruence between the dimensions as I interpret them (i.e. as layed out flat) and the total weight of the garment indicates that this method was probably correct. To make it smaller as you suggest while retaing the same weight value would necesitate the use of exceedingly thick fabric. I can tell you that what I used would make excellent blanket.<br>
<br>
I think a few points may be valid here. As I understand it this papyrus describes only one tunic. There is no evidence that it was ever worn. Nor is there evidence to support that the garment represents the norm in military wear. It may be an<br>
anomally.<br>
<br>
As for the "T" style tunic. My understanding is that this was a<br>
late innovation. To my knowledge the Republican and Early Imperial tunicae were sleevless.<br>
<br>
At any rate, I was in the process of making a new tunic and thought it would be interesting to try replicating the one in question as a starting point. If the result was not to my liking there would be no question that it would contain ample fabric to make one which was.<br>
<br>
I consider the experience productive. Although the resulting article was, in my opinion, unusable I did learn more than I thought I would by trying it.<br>
<br>
More later.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Segmentata - Dating from Spanish find results Paul Elliott 3 1,636 10-20-2011, 02:18 AM
Last Post: Paul Elliott
  The Deepeeka stone grinder. Update and results of first try. Titus Petronicus Graccus 13 3,735 08-01-2008, 04:06 AM
Last Post: Magnus

Forum Jump: